Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

add get_cpus interface

Authored by sbruno on Feb 6 2016, 12:29 AM.



Taken from one of jhb's branches. Now a dependency for iflib. Determines the CPUs one should bind a device's interrupt handler's to.

Diff Detail

rS FreeBSD src repository
Lint Skipped
Unit Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 5449
Build 5659: CI src buildJenkins

Event Timeline

kmacy updated this revision to Diff 13076.Feb 6 2016, 12:29 AM
kmacy retitled this revision from to add get_cpus interface.
kmacy updated this object.
kmacy edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
kmacy added reviewers: jhb, gallatin, glebius.
kmacy set the repository for this revision to rS FreeBSD src repository.
kmacy added subscribers: benno, scottl.
jhb edited edge metadata.Feb 9 2016, 8:30 PM

Thanks for resurrecting this. I've been meaning to get back to it.

I had a thought last night (after seeing this review pop up yesterday). I think we should adjust bus_get_cpus() to also accept the cpuset size similar to the cpuset system calls. This will allow the API to handle modules compiled with a different MAXCPU (one way or another). This is somewhat related to PR 200802 which points out that even our system calls need to do a better job of handling that, but I do think we need the size parameter.


This looks like a typo.

gallatin edited edge metadata.Feb 11 2016, 8:21 PM

I noticed this when trying to backport to stable..


This hunk seems to be extranious


I think this is also extranious

kmacy updated this revision to Diff 13243.Feb 12 2016, 1:17 AM
kmacy edited edge metadata.

remove extraneous changes
add size argument to get_cpus

jhb added inline comments.Feb 13 2016, 8:45 PM

Actually, it's a bit of a mismerge. Let me check my git branch which I've merged more recently than the patches posted to arch@.

However, the idea is to treat non-ACPI devices (no handle) differently than what get_domain() does. Maybe the mis-merge is related to the fact that I also changed get_domain to work with the updated acpi_parse_pxm() and this patch tries to not do that?

Hmm, my branch is quite different here actually. Let me rebase that (and drop the Intel NIC driver diffs for now) and post that as an alternative.

kmacy added inline comments.Feb 13 2016, 8:56 PM

Please do. I have no attachment to this patch. I'd just like to see this interface go in.

sbruno commandeered this revision.Oct 4 2016, 8:16 PM
sbruno added a reviewer: kmacy.
sbruno added a subscriber: sbruno.

This was committed at svn r299286

sbruno abandoned this revision.Oct 4 2016, 8:16 PM

This was committed at svn r299286